Thoughts on E/I, Internal/External, Representation/Reference

I wrote this on WSS and thought it would be good to share here as well.

I think extrovert and introvert in socionics are more Jungian than Eysenck or Big 5. Socionics E/I imo deal with attitudes and in Eysenck/Big 5 the concept of attitude is lost. Extroverted attitudes towards the external world and treating it as objects and introverted attitudes towards the self are the primary concepts in Jung and imo socionics typology. Althrough Aushra uses Object and Field as her concept of I/E I think going into philosophy and cognitive science there are better terms. Extroverted attitudes attempts to present external reality at different levels of reference and self-reference vs introverted attitude and it's also my opinion that some functions produce aggregate information which is referential to some other information. In this way some information may be distant from external reality by way of significant computational processes. Intuition has been studied to be a sort of sensory aggregate, not rationally conscious but still connected to sensory information. So in this way intuition references sensing, but this does not mean it necessarily is a self-reference as a sense of self is not necessary for this computation. Extroverted intuition is simply a attitude away from self reference that references sense information. Extroverted sensing would be a attitude away from self-reference that represents sense information. The introverted attitudes contain a self-referential component and it is this self-referential component that characterizes the introverted attitude. The reason that extroverted intuitive might be characterized as introverted extroverts is because the mechanism of extroverted intuition is distanced from direct sensory representation, and occurs in the mind. In summation, E/I are attitudes towards self-reference. I think in socionics there is another layer of possible references within the model which is Internal and External. Internal information elements and external information elements have a level of referential distance vs "sense reality", internal elements being N/F are distant and in a way aggregate content while S/T external elements attempt to present things as is.

i see introvert/extrovert primarily as something that permeates all of model A's configuration of functions rather than just the Ego or specific functions. in that sense it is a very "deep" trait with far ranging implications and effects.

My view on this is based on my view that consciousness itself is more or less a self-referential loop, and the introverted elements being self-referential in relation to identity.

Introversion is deeply connected with this self-referential loop which allows the mind to understand oneself(and one's mind), where as extroverted elements are pre-cursors that exist to represent reality. And there is this interaction within a feedback loop that creates our experience of the conscious and unconscious.

reality is also a referential loop through a person's actions, i think. beliefs about reality shape reality, which in turn shape beliefs...

perhaps T and F are about which direction the process runs; beliefs adjusting themselves to reality (T), or developing on their own whims and dragging reality behind them (F)... or maybe more of a Serious vs. Merry difference, or both.

The reason that extroverted intuitive might be characterized as introverted extroverts is because the mechanism of extroverted intuition is distanced from direct sensory representation, and occurs in the mind.

Liked this.

Ne+Ti's flavor is definitely that funny blend of a subject-oriented function which aims to make knowledge explicit rather than purely mental, through logical conceptualization, along with mental perceptions that like this says, are still considered from the extraverted pov.
I like to think of the difference between the extraverted pov and rawer extraverted sensation as being that the former is actually more of the psychological sense of knowability of objects. Now it's true, extraverted sensation is some of the most direct experiential interaction with objects period, but the actual sense experiences are not identical with aforementioned psychological sense. Ne deploys mental contextualizations/perceptions (without which logic looks like a string of junk) toward this perspective.
And this funny blend definitely gives alpha NT their signature attitude.
There's definitely something "internal/subjective" about how all intuition occurs, but Ni almost excessively so, giving the IXI a certain interesting nature -- I like to think of the introverted intuitions, in line with fields being about relations, as saying I can only relate two mental states in order to synthesize how I perceive (that's one slant on why Ni winds up about time flow). Ti aims to abstract away from mental states into the logical realm OTOH. I find one thing this does is give a bit more "naive" enthusiasm about the communicability of insight through rational coherency.

reality is also a referential loop through a person's actions, i think. beliefs about reality shape reality, which in turn shape beliefs...

perhaps T and F are about which direction the process runs; beliefs adjusting themselves to reality (T), or developing on their own whims and dragging reality behind them (F)... or maybe more of a Serious vs. Merry difference, or both.

This is interesting. I think "reality" here is subjective, of course, and statics tend to see reality as "fundamental" whereas dynamics seem to swim around (and position themselves) in an eternal sea of randomness. As such, Fi and Ti end up being fundamental and Te and Fe end up being opportunistic. Fi and Fe have in common that they relate to not-directly-related stuff in their respective fundamental and random universes. Ti and Te have in common that they relate to directly-related stuff in their respective fundamental and random universes. So Ti is the most anchored and Fe is the least anchored. (Ti > Fi/Te > Fe) (I didn't care to put I/E into the mix)

reality is also a referential loop through a person's actions, i think. beliefs about reality shape reality, which in turn shape beliefs...

perhaps T and F are about which direction the process runs; beliefs adjusting themselves to reality (T), or developing on their own whims and dragging reality behind them (F)... or maybe more of a Serious vs. Merry difference, or both.

There is a referential quality to all information, but this doesn't mean that it's all at the same level of reference. I think introverted information is referential to the self ("I") as an object, extroverted reference objects in a different manner, this is a relational quality of introverted elements. Object/field is an advancement as it sort of opens up fields to any number of objects, and not just one's identity, but these sort of cognition fall into the same bucket in socionics.

I think parts of reality are affected by belief as these beliefs translate into decisions and communication, but it's not proven in anyway that belief alters all reality. This might be reflexivity in social theory, but imo this is predicated on the interact of conscious minds.

Ne+Ti's flavor is definitely that funny blend of a subject-oriented function which aims to make knowledge explicit rather than purely mental, through logical conceptualization, along with mental perceptions that like this says, are still considered from the extraverted pov.
I like to think of the difference between the extraverted pov and rawer extraverted sensation as being that the former is actually more of the psychological sense of knowability of objects. Now it's true, extraverted sensation is some of the most direct experiential interaction with objects period, but the actual sense experiences are not identical with aforementioned psychological sense. Ne deploys mental contextualizations/perceptions (without which logic looks like a string of junk) toward this perspective.
And this funny blend definitely gives alpha NT their signature attitude.
There's definitely something "internal/subjective" about how all intuition occurs, but Ni almost excessively so, giving the IXI a certain interesting nature -- I like to think of the introverted intuitions, in line with fields being about relations, as saying I can only relate two mental states in order to synthesize how I perceive (that's one slant on why Ni winds up about time flow). Ti aims to abstract away from mental states into the logical realm OTOH. I find one thing this does is give a bit more "naive" enthusiasm about the communicability of insight through rational coherency.

I think Extroverted intuition does a sort of symbolic abstraction which is like a set of eigenvectors(with the same eigen value) for more generalized sensory information.

This gives a static representation across time of a large number of sense experiences, I think extroverted sensing might be doing a similar processing but over a much smaller timespan. I think in many ways Extroverted intuition is attempting to do a time independent analysis vs sensing which is more in the moment.

This quality gives Extroverted Intuition the ability to map out the various possibilities but it lacks directional information which makes it difficult to act on towards some goal or decisive conclusion.

Introverted intuition works as sort of a time function, a set of eigenvalues(matrix)(with the same eigenvector) to describe the direction of some sensory information.

This quality gives Introverted Intuition the ability to select a direction and produce calculations(visions) concerning that direction but it excludes possibilities due to having the same direction, it creates the characteristic of introverted intuitive having a very personal world view, they're literally on their own wavelength in this manner. With introverted intuition although values change, the direction of that introverted intuition dos not.

This is an area where I lack the vocabulary and knowledge to explain so I'm just doing my best to explain.

FWIW, I am formulating my thought via my understanding of the differences of Schrodinger(LII), Heisenberg(ILI), Feynman(ILE) formulation of the same equation.

Matrix mechanics vs Wave Equation vs Path Integral

The fact that these three individuals formulated the same equation differently is a characteristic of their dominant function and as such can provide some insight into the underlying cognitive mechanism behind these Information Elements.

E/I of functions is to be honest one of the harder things out there. The reason is that Jung had a good idea, but I get the sense some of it has had to be reordered. The objects/fields thing is an awesome way to offer a uniform definition of what it means, but it's also a bit harder to translate exactly what that means when we describe specific information elements. Solid abstract sweeping paradigm FTW though.

The reason it's subtle is that "I" is self-referential, yet what is the Self? Pretty theoretical topic. If by Self we mean the human being, that starts to slant towards the ethical types (one form of "subjective) -- mu4 covers this by saying both N and F get put in as internal elements.
But for the more explicit elements like S and T, "Self-referencing" cognition -- what is it?

Jung's concept of "I" oriented cognition, by the way, had a distinctly N-slant, i.e. I don't think he quite separated "I" from "internal" as clearly as we do in socionics.

I find it highly interesting that I/E has a different role in Gulenko's energy model -- noting that I/E do not alternate in his model the way they do in model A. This is closer to the orthodox Jung view, BTW, on function-attitudes (an example being Nietzsche, who was in Jung's much looser, less systematized version, Ni>Ti>Fe>Se). I am still thinking of a good explanation for this, but I find it makes intuitive sense that I/E is not alternating and somehow more absolute in the energy model (why? because I think the direct definition of introversion/extraversion is friendlier to energy, given the subject as an actual *entity* is more theoretical...I think the idea thus of turning subject-oriented cognition to this cognition of "relations" between objects seems exactly right...only missing link for me is to see, finally, why this leads naturally to model A's alternating paradigm...).

The role of I/E in the world of matter rather than the world of energy is to me more experimental. Eyesenk/etc are based on simpler, more social-based versions of the energy definition. I don't think the connection of I/E to cognition has been significantly broached by them.

I mean, the energy model also follows the same kind of NeFeTeSe cycle thing, except the top 4 are all introverted, so e.g. LSI becomes TiSiFiNi=? FeNeTeSe (which is a "result type"??? Is there some deep reasoning why the energy model of LSI should be result where the ordinary LSI is process?)

E/I of functions is to be honest one of the harder things out there. The reason is that Jung had a good idea, but I get the sense some of it has had to be reordered. The objects/fields thing is an awesome way to offer a uniform definition of what it means, but it's also a bit harder to translate exactly what that means when we describe specific information elements. Solid abstract sweeping paradigm FTW though.

The reason it's subtle is that "I" is self-referential, yet what is the Self? Pretty theoretical topic. If by Self we mean the human being, that starts to slant towards the ethical types (one form of "subjective) -- mu4 covers this by saying both N and F get put in as internal elements.
But for the more explicit elements like S and T, "Self-referencing" cognition -- what is it?

Jung's concept of "I" oriented cognition, by the way, had a distinctly N-slant, i.e. I don't think he quite separated "I" from "internal" as clearly as we do in socionics.

I find it highly interesting that I/E has a different role in Gulenko's energy model -- noting that I/E do not alternate in his model the way they do in model A. This is closer to the orthodox Jung view, BTW, on function-attitudes (an example being Nietzsche, who was in Jung's much looser, less systematized version, Ni>Ti>Fe>Se). I am still thinking of a good explanation for this, but I find it makes intuitive sense that I/E is not alternating and somehow more absolute in the energy model (why? because I think the direct definition of introversion/extraversion is friendlier to energy, given the subject as an actual *entity* is more theoretical...I think the idea thus of turning subject-oriented cognition to this cognition of "relations" between objects seems exactly right...only missing link for me is to see, finally, why this leads naturally to model A's alternating paradigm...).

The role of I/E in the world of matter rather than the world of energy is to me more experimental. Eyesenk/etc are based on simpler, more social-based versions of the energy definition. I don't think the connection of I/E to cognition has been significantly broached by them.

I mean, the energy model also follows the same kind of NeFeTeSe cycle thing, except the top 4 are all introverted, so e.g. LSI becomes TiSiFiNi=? FeNeTeSe (which is a "result type"??? Is there some deep reasoning why the energy model of LSI should be result where the ordinary LSI is process?)

The "I" of I is like one of the biggest problems in all of cognitive science.

I think maybe we should ask gulenko some of these questions you have about Energomodel.

We should maybe collect a few and we can get him to comment?

"I mean, the energy model also follows the same kind of NeFeTeSe cycle thing, except the top 4 are all introverted, so e.g. LSI becomes TiSiFiNi=? FeNeTeSe (which is a "result type"??? Is there some deep reasoning why the energy model of LSI should be result where the ordinary LSI is process?"

The why of this could be very important indeed. I think the Energotype is a reflection of the Model A type, it's necessarily reversed in a way because of how it interacts with the TIM, like a mirrored reflection.

@mu4 great idea. Here's the general stuff on my mind (which, if it becomes more specific, I can try to clarify more).

1) What are the "energy elements" even describing, in contrast with the information elements? In other words, what does the structure of one's energy type tell one about how one manages energy? FOR EXAMPLE --- Se he commented once earlier is a really "heavy" element. So presumably it would be heavy for everyone, not just Se types. So how would this "heavy" element being "base" for one person and lower for another change their relation to this "heaviness"?

And can he give a description of the energy elements individually? Really the thing I still don't get is somehow what an energy element even is. I get that energomodel is said to be about disturbance of homeostasis, but I'm used to Se, Si, Te, etc being about certain kinds of information. So e.g. Ne conveys the potential of an object. What does Ne in energomodel convey? What does Ti even convey? If not individually, just generally, how to think of what the energy element conveys, and illustration through maybe 1 "energo"-element from introverted and extraverted categories...(is introversion/extraversion still objects v fields in the energomodel?)

2) Basically this thing we're going on about now, i.e., what is the theoretical underpinning of the energomodel on a more fundamental level (that one article gives a lot of description of the specific roles, but the "why" the energy model is structured the way it is still remains less clear) -- for instance, why do E/I alternate in model A, whereas E/I is kind of separated in half in energomodel, kind of like static/dynamic is for model A?
Why is static/dynamic the sort of main division for model A, whereas E/I seems to take its place in energomodel?

And why do process/result seem to flip (something about energy model being the complementary perspective to matter maybe)?

3) Obvious question but important: in what ways do energomodel and model A interact, i.e. instead of being two separate types, how do they talk to each other? One specific there is, if the energy model "sits on top of" the vital block of model A, how does it interact with it? Does it interact with the mental part of model A at all?

4) Once and for all, what's the real relation between energomodel and DCNH? Related? Can you have IP as your dcnh subtype but a different energomodel type, e.g., be LII-H+energomodel SEE, just for kicks?

5) There is a mental and a vital in model A -- the latter corresponds more to energy perhaps (but not the "disturbance" of one's energy state, rather, maybe what is used to maintain stable energy states..). Does Gulenko still use this paradigm? If so, do 4/8 of the energomodel elements correspond to mental things, the way 4/8 of model A are not how one represents information?

6) Ideally one illustration of 2 very different types and what happens as a result of the communication/combo, again something like say, LII-IEI or LII-SEE, etc.

@mu4 great idea. Here's the general stuff on my mind (which, if it becomes more specific, I can try to clarify more).

1) What are the "energy elements" even describing, in contrast with the information elements? In other words, what does the structure of one's energy type tell one about how one manages energy? FOR EXAMPLE --- Se he commented once earlier is a really "heavy" element. So presumably it would be heavy for everyone, not just Se types. So how would this "heavy" element being "base" for one person and lower for another change their relation to this "heaviness"?

And can he give a description of the energy elements individually? Really the thing I still don't get is somehow what an energy element even is. I get that energomodel is said to be about disturbance of homeostasis, but I'm used to Se, Si, Te, etc being about certain kinds of information. So e.g. Ne conveys the potential of an object. What does Ne in energomodel convey? What does Ti even convey? If not individually, just generally, how to think of what the energy element conveys, and illustration through maybe 1 "energo"-element from introverted and extraverted categories...(is introversion/extraversion still objects v fields in the energomodel?)

2) Basically this thing we're going on about now, i.e., what is the theoretical underpinning of the energomodel on a more fundamental level (that one article gives a lot of description of the specific roles, but the "why" the energy model is structured the way it is still remains less clear) -- for instance, why do E/I alternate in model A, whereas E/I is kind of separated in half in energomodel, kind of like static/dynamic is for model A?
Why is static/dynamic the sort of main division for model A, whereas E/I seems to take its place in energomodel?

And why do process/result seem to flip (something about energy model being the complementary perspective to matter maybe)?

3) Obvious question but important: in what ways do energomodel and model A interact, i.e. instead of being two separate types, how do they talk to each other? One specific there is, if the energy model "sits on top of" the vital block of model A, how does it interact with it? Does it interact with the mental part of model A at all?

4) Once and for all, what's the real relation between energomodel and DCNH? Related? Can you have IP as your dcnh subtype but a different energomodel type, e.g., be LII-H+energomodel SEE, just for kicks?

5) There is a mental and a vital in model A -- the latter corresponds more to energy perhaps (but not the "disturbance" of one's energy state, rather, maybe what is used to maintain stable energy states..). Does Gulenko still use this paradigm? If so, do 4/8 of the energomodel elements correspond to mental things, the way 4/8 of model A are not how one represents information?

6) Ideally one illustration of 2 very different types and what happens as a result of the communication/combo, again something like say, LII-IEI or LII-SEE, etc.

These are all good questions, I'm not great with asking a ton of question(usually just one at a time) and this is a good amount of system questions to ask him about energomodel. I wonder if they should be more concise.

@mu4 OK more concise version (but sadly not SUPER concise) .. now I can trim the actual content, this is just trimming the wording--

1) What do the energy elements describe as opposed to the information elements, and in particular, how does the so-called S/N/T/F paradigm still work to describe energy metabolism when originally it was created for describing information metabolism? What are the definitions of the 8 energy elements/how can we recognize them *preferably* with compare/contrast to how the IE are defined (e.g. energo Se describes X while IE Se describes Y -- they are intuitively both "Se" forms but ultimately getting at different things..)

2) Why does static/dynamic get replaced seemingly with I/E in terms of dividing the information model vs energomodel into two distinguished halves? Reference: as in this article, where LSI gets divided into TiSiFiNi and the rest http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...y-V-Gulenko%29 Why do extraversion/introversion alternate in the information metabolism model A, but are put together in energomodel?

Why do process/result flip, i.e. for example, why does energomodel LSI seem to follow the result pattern, while the usual LSI does process?

3) Obvious question but important: in what ways do energomodel and model A interact, i.e. instead of being two separate types, how do they talk to each other? One specific there is, if the energy model "sits on top of" the vital block of model A, how does it interact with it? Does it interact with the mental part of model A at all?

4) Once and for all, what's the real relation between energomodel and DCNH? Related? Can you have IP as your dcnh subtype but a different energomodel type, e.g., be LII-H+energomodel SEE, just for kicks?

5) There is a mental and a vital in model A -- the latter corresponds more to energy perhaps (but not the "disturbance" of one's energy state, rather, maybe what is used to maintain stable energy states..). Does Gulenko still use this paradigm? If so, do 4/8 of the energomodel elements correspond to mental things, the way 4/8 of model A are not how one represents information?

6) Ideally one illustration of 2 very different types and what happens as a result of the communication/combo, again something like say, LII-IEI or LII-SEE, etc.

7) What is the relation between the Persona type description in Man as a System of Types and the Energy Type -- the same, as appears suggested? Gulenko appears to suggest most tests of type are more akin to measuring persona than ego type, in that article. Is this the case with the MBTI for example?

As an example, I've often noted that there seems to be a discrepancy between irrational types in the informational sense -- i.e. Jung's diagnosis of Nietzsche as an introverted intuitive over an introverted thinking type based on how we cannot understand the information he conveys in a purely logical format, due to the divergence from logic and foray into intuition --- and the irrational type in the more behavioral/lifestyle sense, where e.g. one speaks to lower rigidity, higher flexibility and adaptability, as more of a way of life.